As Cop 26 ends, the industry faces key questions for future
AS we come to the end of COP 26, how does the livestock industry fit in with the challenges?
There has been an anthropogenic warming of the world of over 1C since the mid-18th Century, with atmospheric CO2 rising in parallel with industrialisation. The vast majority has come from burning fossil fuels for heating/transport/electricity and producing consumer goods.
But aren’t cows the biggest source of climate warming emissions?
All we need to do is swap to a more “plant based” diet?
To keep climate change at a manageable level, we need to keep warming below 1.5C and current international commitments leave us closer to 3C.
Cows emit methane as they ruminate – a by product of converting grass to meat/milk.
Methane is 28 times more warming than CO2 and agriculture contributes more than half of methane in UK.
But CH4 (methane) breaks down after 10 years versus centuries for CO2.
Warming potential is calculated using GWP100 metric; assuming CO2 has a score of one, then CH4 has score of 28 over 100 years (28 times more warming than CO2 over a century).
But this ignores CH4’S short life, inflating its impact.
Many scientists believe a new method is needed – GWP100 (not denying methane is an important GHG). CH4 emitted by cows (biogenic) is different to that released by burning fossil fuels, being part of the natural carbon cycle, where it is broken down after 10 years and recycled by photosynthesis and further rumination.
This biogenic methane is a ‘flow gas’ and after 10 years a static population of cattle is creating no new warming as it is constantly recycling.
Contrast ‘stock’ CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries and is added to every year, even reaching the highest levels during pandemic. We would need to
stop burning fossil fuels immediately to arrest this rise and the fossil fuel industry is the biggest global emitter.
Unlike biogenic methane, CH4 from this was safely buried, inert, until we dug it up and burnt it.
With cattle, if we made them more efficient through feed/ breeding, we could (after a decade) induce a cooling effect as that methane breaks down and is sequestered in biomass and soil.
Not all livestock production is the same though - beef produced from ash of the Amazon is unacceptable for emissions and biodiversity and grain fed to large, global feedlots is also problematic.
But British beef and dairy is improving all the time and has 52% lower GHG emissions than the global average.
If people believe “meat free” makes a meaningful contribution to the threat posed by climate change, they’re mistaken, and it also distracts from bigger challenges.
Livestock are a critical part of sustainable, regenerative farming systems, building soil health, providing organic nutrients, maintaining grassland habitats and sequestering CO2 in the soil.
We need more ruminants, not less, in our food systems!
Any food has an environmental footprint – the avocado can have a catastrophic impact on biodiversity, environment and local communities, too.
Sustainable livestock is part of the solution and it’s time we stopped blaming cows for being at the root of climate change.
Even using flawed GWP100, ruminants cannot account for 94% of emissions in the economy.
It’s everything else!